The controversy over what rights felons have after being convicted varies ``from state to state. As a United States citizen, our right to vote is presented clearly in the Constitution. Due to this, being incarcerated should not affect our civil duties or rights. Stripping citizens of their right to vote only weakens our democracy because it minimizes voting turnouts. To address this issue, congress has the position and power to overrule each state’s laws to make it clear that convicted felons should be eligible to vote in all states.
Also, sex is something that just doesn’t happen in the world of Anthem, sex isn’t really a taboo, it just doesn’t happen except for an event that happens once a year in a big room. Unlike 1984, where sex was allowed as long as it wasn’t emotional, sex only happens on a holiday set aside for it in Anthem. Orwell thought that if communism were to come to fruition, there would be a constant watch over people to make sure that nobody steps out of line, and the people wouldn’t want to deal with the insanity of the laws the government sets up. Ayn Rand thought that if communism was successful, there would be little to no need for a police force because the people would be so conditioned to think a certain way, that they would oppress the people who don’t think that way all on their own, without the need for a police
The issue of juveniles being tried as adults is no doubt controversial, however, it should be understood that every juvenile delinquent is capable of change and it is just a matter of degree. The law was able to realize this and change for the better. Ex-adult convicts were able to become more useful members of society, even more so, juveniles who are still developing. It is a cruel and unprecedented punishment to sentence a juvenile to adult prisons which could bring more abuse than the original sentence. Ultimately there is always hope for a juvenile to change for the better.
Chase dreams even if doing so is technically illegal. Throughout history, we have celebrated those who disobey unjust laws in the name of justice. Take Martin Luther King for example. “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right of vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.”(King, p469) However, all sorts of devious methods were used to prevent the colored from becoming registered voters. All men are created equal, but the colored were not given the equal rights to vote nor were they treated equally at that time.
We do not hear about these cases near as much, because sometimes these cases are never really brought to light (Stewart, Police Brutality). Police brutality is a huge problem in this world today and we need to take it very seriously, body cameras have been promoted as a solution to the police misconduct problem. Some examples of police taking their authority too far is Michael Brown killed in Ferguson, and Erik Garner killed in Staten Island (funk, New york times). These cases could have been support a lot better in court and kept everyone true to their word if body cameras would have been in the picture, the families could be relieved in knowing what actually happened in that incident and the case could have been put to rest a lot sooner than they were. Studies show that use of force complaints were decreased by 75 percent once the use of body cameras was put into play (scheindlin, pg 1).
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t and they have to learn not to hurt those who support Clinton.
The improved definition includes all possible victims, and no longer subscribes to the pervasive myth that “Men can’t be raped or sexually assaulted”. Rape should no longer lead to an argument of ‘semantics’ because vaginal penetration didn’t occur, and that’s “not considered rape”. In a perfect world, victims having their experiences invalidated would never occur, however, no matter how flawed a world is, reigning authorities on law should stand as the example. Inappropriate responses to a victim in the aftermath of a crime can lead to them suffering “secondary injuries”, which can range from the short-term insomnia all the way to the long-term PTSD. Avoiding these often callous assessments of a victim’s experience decreases the chances of those same long-term effects on the psyche of the aforementioned
I myself find that the facts supporting to abolish the death penalty outweigh any reason to continue to uphold it. With a broken judicial system leading to death row. It is littered with racial and economic hardships inadequacies and flaws innocent people are being sentenced to death court systems bottlenecked with motions and procedures that only prolong the impending doom. Many People argue that the worst of the worst of the worst should be put to death and that there is no reason to hold out with hopes that they will change. Other argue that the we must keep the death penalty for a deterrent.
While the test subjects did in fact consent to the experiment via documents, they developed this false understanding through the experiment that they could not leave at any time, that “there was no way out”. During this time period, there were no existing laws that this experiment violated but it did pave the way for several to be introduced. For example, in the consent form it stated that the prisoners would not experience physical harm, but several days later they were brutally beaten by the guards. A few scenarios such as this one would be considered illegal with today’s legal system. One law that was created after this required federal prisons to separate minors awaiting trial from adults to avoid them suffering from abuse.
Law and order is one of the characteristics of first world countries. With that said, following these laws might not always be the right or just thing to do. In Plato’s Crito Socrates had a very rigid view of following the laws and never breaking them, even though the law unjustly put him in jail. I believe having this rigid belief on the laws is wrong, and the belief should be more towards following just laws and standing up for unjust ones. On the other hand, people might argue, if some people stop obeying the law in the name of justice, others will stop following them completely.
The 1st Amendment shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. The framers believed that it was necessary to have the ability to share ideas to have the government to be able to be a democracy. The amendment was then brought to the Supreme Court. Hugo Black gave his input by saying, “The Framers knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” This is only some of the history of how the framers thought that the first amendment was necessary to have in the constitution.
http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control-an-international-comparison/. I don 't think we should ban all gun ownership - and I don 't think there are very many people who are pushing for it. But even if we did, the history of other nations suggests that it does remedy the stated harm. / / And the NRA was pro gun control until the 1970s: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.html. In fact, they didn 't even talk about the Second Amendment before 1977.
To add, freedom of speech was very important to George Washington and he greatly influenced it being included. In 1783 he said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be lead, like sheep to the slaughter.” This reveals that freedom of speech is vital to the citizen’s rights. In 1534, the monarchs in England restricted what could be printed. Although we still have some restrictions of what content is allowed on the media, opinions, thoughts, and ideas can all be presented clearly through press. Lastly, freedom to assemble and to petition the government was added so that the government could not take away the citizen’s rights to assemble and petition, which was done in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party.